Another Tory endorsement

This time, from the Toronto Star.

When The Star turns orange, there could be no better sign that the Conservatives are the best party to govern. The formerly scarlet paper has twisted crowbars into pretzels to sell the idea that smiling Jack deserves your vote.

This is not a shock, but the truth is, I'm kinda disappointed. I thought that despite the crash and burn of the Liberal party, its very own little rag would be able to find a way to stay red. I figured maybe they'd pull the Time Man of the Year cop out ... you remember the year when the winner was *you* ... I thought the Star'd set out a little blurb about the evils of each party, focussing tightly on Harper whilst treading ever so lightly on Ignatieff and then say something like . . . so hold your nose and vote . . . but only you can decide which party's policies/behaviour horrify you least.

But no. They took the high road. At least, I figure they must be high . . . how else can they justify this radical piece of advice that would lurch the nation so far to the left it would become a socialist wasteland.

Okay. That's hyperbole, but come on, if The Star can keep a straight face and endorse Layton, don't expect me to keep a straight face. What a joke The Star is. And what a HUGE waste of paper. Literally.

canadianna

All things being equal -- booo

Did you hear Ignatieff today going on about equality?

I just hate it when the privileged classes start waxing on about equality.

Please, don't pretend that you're one of *us*. That's what makes people cynical. Ivy league, silver spoon, caviar eating elites.

Run around all the campaign events you want. Do a country-wide tour. No matter where you are it's not real. You don't even know who we are, don't keep pretending you have any idea what we want.

If you knew anything about us, you'd know that the people in Mississauga didn't boo because they'd had a couple of beers like you said, they booed because they knew that's what you'd think about them.

Canadianna

I've changed my mind -- I don't like Jack

I have to admit, I don't like negative election ads. Long before the shenanigans that brought about this most recent election, I despised the Conservative *He didn't come back for you* ads. They just seemed so unnecessary, plus, I don't like the voice of the guy they have doing the voice-overs on their negative ads.

Anyway, today I saw the new Conservative ad about Jack Layton and the NDP and I decided to go look it up on conservative.ca. I'm glad I did. It made me think. A couple of google searches and I landed on Stephen Taylor's pages where I found myself re-reading things I'd completely forgotten since I shrugged off politics and went back to real life.

I remember 2008. Back then, I still paid attention to politics in a way that I haven't since. I still got angry at the sanctimony and piousness of the left. Once the talk of the rancid coalition fizzled, I sort of dropped out of current events. Burn out, I guess. Many of us spent a lot of emotion from 2004/05 and by the beginning of 2009, I'd had enough.

There are a lot of people out there like I've been this past couple of years. Disengaged. When you stop paying attention, you're also inclined to forget. I'm glad the Conservative attack ad made me remember and prompted me to google NDP strategist, Brian Topp, and his smug little book *How we almost gave the Tories the boot*.

Jack says he's *ready to be PM*

Hopefully, the blue Grits will come on over . . . because given the choice between the Liberals with their bad policies like(cap and trade) and their regurgitated promises (national daycare) and Jack Layton with his socialist agenda and soft talk on Bill 101 while he flirts with destiny . . . you won't recognize Canada when they get through with it.

canadianna

Wake up time

This morning on the news I heard Jack Layton utter the words:

In the first hundred days of an NDP government . . .

And knowing, that not only is Jack serious, that sensible people are taking the notion seriously . . . you have to hope that people everywhere will remember Bob Rae and the protest vote that gave us the NDP majority in Ontario in the 90s.

Maybe Jack's sincere belief and reaction to the upswing in the poll is enough to make more rational people snap out it and not give in to knee jerk disdain for Ignatieff and the Liberals.

Truth is, I like Jack and respect the NDP for their sincere beliefs. I simply think their fiscal policy is ruinous. Hearing those words from Jack's lips, and knowing he meant them ... it was almost surreal.

canadianna

Okay, I'll play

Always love Kate's sign generator (title link). This time I decided to play. Here are a few of my tries:




canadianna

Libs have the answer, refuse to use it

The Liberals have no official policy on abortion. The Conservatives do. Anyone who's paid attention these past few years knows that at the policy convention in 2005, the Conservative Party held that:

58. Abortion Legislation
A Conservative Government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion.

The Liberals have never made such a promise.

Now, some would say that this declaration allows a private member to put forward a bill, and that scoundrel Harper would allow his MPs to vote their conscience. What trickery! This would mean the deciding votes to institute an abortion law would have to come from the Liberals (because the Conservative Party is not 100% social conservatives and you'd never get enough from the NDP or Bloc).

I think what bothers the Liberals most is that they know that it would be the votes of their members that have the potential to regulate abortion in Canada. Scandalous!

It is unlikely that the Conservative Party alone would ever have enough votes to change the status of abortion or same-sex marriage or any other socially contentious issue. That means they'd need support from members of another party . . . Maybe the Liberals should actually make it Liberal policy that they will neither introduce nor vote for any abortion legislation brought before parliament. In one fell swoop they could thwart the secret evil social-conservative cabal in government.

Oh damn. Too simple. How could the Liberals even have a chance if they couldn't scream *hidden agenda*? They might have to think up new policy or something novel like that.

canadianna

Is it over yet?

Here's what I think.

Some Liberal strategist who secretly likes Bob Rae and wants him to be the next Liberal leader/Prime Minister, is working hard on the campaign of Michael Ignatieff.

Everyone knows Bobby and Mike are long-time frenemies. Who do you suppose is gonna pick up the pieces after the Liberal's epic failure? I think I've heard Bob Rae's name once during this campaign. Hmmmmm . . .

Sadly, and though I hate to bring it up, during past campaigns, we've watched the Conservatives fumble in the last week and half before election day -- instead of recalling that, and savouring the possibilities, we've watched Liberals anticipating their own fall. And then, when you watch SUN-TV and hear Warren Kinsella talking as though he's doing a post-mortem on the Liberal campaign, you have to think there's a plan in the works -- a plan for the next election maybe?

The natural governing party of Canada as part of a humble and weak coalition in which a separatist party holds sway? I think not. Liberals are too arrogant. They're throwing the game. They must be.

canadianna

You won't recognize Canada . . .

I think we've heard this song before.

Click the title link and read, as Warren Kinsella pulls out the same worn and tired Liberal red herrings as in 2006. What a shock. I thought hope, not fear, won elections. Who knew?

When the Liberals grasped at straws in 2006, suggesting that a Conservative win would make the sky crash, I wrote this (links to the post -- Activist Judges? Never).

Funny how the Liberals silly bag of tricks never holds anything new. Whether it's their promises, like Universal Child Care or their tactics, like scaring Canada into hating Harper (links to the post -- Defending Stephen Harper) or worse, trying to vilify a whole segment of Canadians for their core values (links to the post -- Expressing my views and advancing my cause) Liberals never seem to get bored with the idea that Canadians are too lazy to think.

Despite Kinsella's regurgitating old canards, Stephen Harper isn't stupid enough to dredge up dead social issues like same-sex marriage or abortion despite his personal beliefs on those issues. I think he and Conservatives believe they're done deals and that Canadians have other priorities. As for the death penalty, if that was in his nefarious plans, why build more jails when you're just gonna kill 'em all? And many rational, centrist Canadians agree with Harper on the long gun registry -- so as scary as going back to the days when farmers and hunters were running amok with unregistered guns, a lot of Canadians are okay if we revisit that.

The only ones scared right now are the Liberals.

Warren, you're starting to sound like a dinosaur.

Canadianna

Dear Stephen,

There's no doubt in my mind that you can run a government . . . an election campaign . . . not so much. Don't mind me saying, a man who doesn't learn from his mistakes is making another mistake. Three times you've tried it your way and maybe you think fourth time's a charm. I'm thinking not.

The news link up top caught my attention. I don't believe for a minute that you've ordered your campaign people to toss out non-supporters at events. That kind of minutia is just not your turf when you're out there stumping . . . you're quoted in the piece as saying:

"Staff runs our campaigns and I can't comment on individual matters like that.''

Sorry Stephen, not good enough.

First, why were your staffers checking out people's Facebooks before they came in to hear you speak? I think that's creepy and I'm one of your supporters.

Second, your reaction to this very, very bad situation should not have been so blithe. You should find out who these girls were and invite them to talk with you personally . . . not only would it be a grand gesture, it would be the right thing to do.

Third, you should not fire the dorks who stopped them. You should give proper direction to those handling your campaign that you'd rather be disrupted by hecklers than by *their* stupidity.

You seem to have lightened up over the past few years and it suits you. It would serve you well to suggest your staffers do the same.

Finally, I hope you quit finding molehills to trip over, but when you do, remember that only you can make a misstep better--- not by shrugging it off like it was nothing --- because it wasn't *nothing* to those young women -- but by saying *wow, I didn't know that happened. I'd really like to make things right . . . * and then doing something to show you mean it.

Stephen, I've always thought you were the best man for the job, but the job is about more than just policy and platforms -- it's about people. You know it . . . so don't leave it to some staffer when things go wrong.

Sincerely,
Canadianna

Speak your mind, but not on my time

Sid? Speak your mind. Go ahead -- quite frankly, I'd be surprised if anybody really cares what Sid Ryan, private citizen has to say about anything, let alone Israel. And go ahead, criticize Israel . . . condemn, boycott, write a letter to the editor -- but quit using CUPE as a pulpit.

I said much the same in 2006.

CUPE is not a private institution. It isn't like CAW, where people can say -- hey, I think they're idiots, I'm not buying their cars -- I'm forced to use the services provided by CUPE -- I can't boycott you.

Your membership is also hostage to the agenda 'voted' on in 2006 condemning Israel. What are they gonna do, quit their jobs? Even if they support Israel, their dues support an agenda that condemns it. Lucky them.

Private citizens are entitled to their opinions, even unions are entitled to vote and determine 'policy' with regard to political issues -- but CUPE is a PUBLIC SECTOR UNION. You should be serving the public, not pushing a political agenda. The public is a diverse entity. Members of the public who disagree with your stance, CUPE's stance, should not be compelled to do business with a government affiliate, hostile to their personal beliefs.

canadianna

Disproportionate response

Politics these days is such a laugh riot, that I've decided to write about something of a more serious nature:

The NHL suspended that idiot Sean Avery -- indefinitely -- for the sin of slagging his ex-girlfriends, who are now dating other NHLers:

(t)he Dallas Stars forward made inappropriate comments toward Calgary defenceman Dion Phaneuf and his girlfriend, Canadian actress Elisha Cuthbert.

The remarks got Avery suspended indefinitely, and he must now travel to New York for a hearing with NHL commissioner Gary Bettman at 10:30 a.m. ET Thursday, where he could face further discipline.

Oh-oh. Inappropriate comments. That's really bad. Someone's gotta stop him!

Compare that with Montreal's Tom Kostopoulos, who back in mid-November, was suspended for a whopping three games for a vicious hit from behind on Mike Van Ryn. Van Ryn suffered a concussion, several broken teeth, a broken nose and a broken hand and is out until early January at the earliest.

So boys, remember -- sticks and blind hits can break the other guy's bones and might get you sat for a couple of games -- but name-calling some chick who's dating a guy on the other team? That's gonna cost you big time.

canadianna

30 days of post -election consultations and Dion found his way to power

Does anybody have their Dion to English dictionary handy?

I thought I heard him say:

"Mr. Speaker Every member of this house has received a mandate from the people to deliver a government that will face the economic crisis. The PM has failed, he does not have the support of this house anymore."

Does that mean if he -- as newly self-appointed Prime Minister -- can't produce a budget and positive fiscal results before January 27th, that he will have failed -- because if he can't do that before January 27th -- he will have had as much time as Prime Minister as Harper has had in this session of Parliament and decidedly less of a mandate.

Creating political instability and economic uncertainty in order to attain power is cynical at best. While the rules of our parliamentary democracy allow for such an undertaking, the flaccid reasoning behind this attempted coup are not nearly urgent enough to overturn the results of an election not yet seven weeks past, where Parliament has been in session for less than a month.

I guess this is what Dion meant when he said he would consult for 30 days after the election -- only -- most of us thought if would be IF he became Prime Minister, not IN ORDER TO BECOME Prime Minister.

Silly Stephane, tricks are for kids. You're screwing with our country. Grow up. You lost. Get over it.

canadianna

Who's the Boss?

I don't give a damn where they sit -- with a veto on government business until 2011 - who's calling the shots?

Comfort yourself by listening to the BS if you like -- the Bloc is not part of the coalition -- they will not sit in government -- they ARE the bloody government when they have the numbers to assert control -- and they do. Jack Layton has sold his soul on the pretense that a few Cabinet seats will give him 'power'. Nice guy Dion, gets the title and the Rt. Hon. attached to his name and of course, the Liberals will not risk political uncertainty come the Spring and they'll reaffirm the puppet as PM in order to maintain their dubious claim to 'government.'

The Bloc is the only winner in this. They serve the interests of Quebec only and thanks to the Liberals and the NDP - those are the interests your taxes will be serving for the next three years.

Welcome to Canada, Prime Minister Duceppe. Monsieur Dion? I think you'd better put on some clothes.

canadianna

All you can do is shake your head

The Bloc as part of a governing coalition.

The Bloc Quebecois, as part of government?

A separatist party, taking a significant and powerful role in forming policy for all of Canada?

And no Liberals or NDPers see a problem with this?

Even if you hate Stephen Harper -- even if you are still amongst the few ignorant people who 'fear' Stephen Harper -- you have to see how very wrong this is.

It is one thing for opposition parties, including the Bloc to work to bring down the government -- it is entirely another for the the opposition, including the Bloc to sit AS government. For those who don't see the difference -- I suggest you are letting your partisan slip show.

Please, don't remind me that most of the people who voted, didn't vote for Harper -- I am aware of that already -- but I remind you, most of the people who voted in previous elections didn't vote for most of the PMs we've had in recent history -- that never mattered until now.

This is your country and a group of mercenary, power hungry, myopic despots are hijacking it in the name of -- in the name of -- what?

canadianna

Too bad

It's almost sad that the Tories didn't have the guts to stick it out and allow the pig-three to form a coalition government. Would have been mighty interesting having Ignatieff and Rae and Layton explain how they could, in good conscience, allow the Bloc to actually be part of forming government.

Besides, there is so much in-fighting in the Liberal Party, they can barely function themselves, let alone hold it together with two other power hungry, divisive parties.

Too bad Harper blinked.

canadianna